DOCSLIB.ORG

Senate the Senate Met at 10 A.M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Senate the Senate Met at 10 A.M E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 162 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 No. 78 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was infrastructure funding bill. The Repub- already begun considering two more of called to order by the President pro lican-led Senate did so in record early them this week. The first measure is tempore (Mr. HATCH). time. We began considering an annual the transportation and housing infra- f appropriations bill this year at the ear- structure bill. It will make smart in- liest point in 40 years—40 years—and vestments in important infrastructure PRAYER then we passed an annual appropria- priorities. It will strengthen our sur- The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- tions bill this year at the earliest point face transportation network and help fered the following prayer: in 40 years. Passage of this bill also make air travel safer, more efficient, Let us pray. marks the first time the Senate has and more reliable. Eternal God, who hears our prayers passed an individual energy and water I thank Senator COLLINS for her dedi- and listens to our cries for help, thank funding measure since 2009. cated leadership on this important leg- You for Your mercies that come to us This shows what is possible with a islation. new each day. You save us with Your little cooperation and regular order. By The second measure is the Veterans strength, continually showing us Your returning to regular order, we are bet- and Military Construction funding bill. It will increase accountability at the unfailing love. ter able to make better decisions about VA and help ensure veterans receive Help our lawmakers today to discern how taxpayer dollars are spent through the health care and benefits they rely Your voice and do Your will. Lord, give the appropriations bills. on. It will advance vital national secu- them the ability to differentiate Your Here is what we mean when we talk rity projects, such as missile defense, guidance from all others, permitting about returning to regular order. We and help ensure military families are You to lead them to Your desired des- mean working in committee and allow- supported with housing, schools, and ing Senators from both sides to have tination. Speak to them through Your health facilities to serve them. Word, guide them with Your Spirit, their voices heard. We mean bringing This is the result of great work by a and sustain them with Your might. bills to the floor and empowering more true champion of veterans—Senator Members to offer suggestions they O God, You are our rock, our fortress, KIRK. Senator KIRK and Senator COL- think might make a good bill even bet- and our Savior. All Your promises LINS both worked hard to move these prove true. ter. We mean working through hours of bills out of the Committee on Appro- We pray in Your mighty Name. debate and deliberation, processing priations with unanimous bipartisan Amen. amendments from both sides, and then support. Now they are working hard to f arriving at a final bill that actually pass them together out here on the passes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE floor. They have already lined up sev- That is just what we did here, and it eral amendments that we will consider The President pro tempore led the resulted in the record early passage of later today. Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: an energy and water appropriations bill I would like to say a few words about I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the that will help support economic devel- one of these issues in particular. Both United States of America, and to the Repub- opment, waterways infrastructure, and Republicans and Democrats agree that lic for which it stands, one nation under God, energy programs—initiatives that are preventing the spread of Zika is a bi- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. important in my home State of Ken- partisan priority. That is why Members f tucky and in States across our coun- from both parties have been looking at try. RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY different approaches to properly ad- So I want to thank Senator ALEX- LEADER dress the situation. They worked ANDER for working diligently with Sen- through the best avenue to address the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COT- ator FEINSTEIN to move this bill for- funding that may be needed to do so— TON). The majority leader is recog- ward. They collaborated with both the appropriations process—and came nized. Democratic and Republican colleagues up with several different approaches f to ensure a fair process and an outcome for us to consider later today. that a majority of Senators could sup- One amendment is from Senators THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS port. BLUNT and MURRAY. It is a targeted ap- Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, last I also want to thank Chairman COCH- proach that focuses on immediate week, the Republican-led Senate RAN and Ranking Member MIKULSKI for needs while also providing resources passed, by an overwhelming majority, working within the Committee on Ap- for longer term goals, such as a vac- the first appropriations bill of the propriations to move appropriations cine. It includes accountability meas- year—the energy security and water measures so early this year. We have ures and represents a notable departure ∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. S2833 . VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:48 May 18, 2016 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A17MY6.000 S17MYPT1 smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SENATE S2834 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 2016 from our Democratic colleagues’ initial against transgender people is prohib- there, such as Bruce Springsteen. But position. It is good to see our Demo- ited when it is based on gender noncon- it is not just that. It is hundreds—hun- cratic friends compromise. formity. dreds—of other firms that are coming Another amendment is from Senators That is why last week the Depart- out in opposition to the law because CORNYN and JOHNSON. Their enhanced ment of Justice sued North Carolina, what they are doing is illegal. approach builds upon the appropri- finding that its law constitutes a pat- But Republican leaders are standing ators’ work by responsibly offsetting tern or practice of discrimination by their bigotry at a tremendous cost Zika funding with funds that have been under the Civil Rights Act, the Edu- to the State, and that is disappointing. set aside for public health and preven- cation Amendments Act of 1972, and I stand with the administration in op- tion purposes. It would also remove the Violence Against Women Act, posing the North Carolina law. I stand redtape and help promote mosquito which we passed just last year. with all Americans against this shame- control, which is the best way to keep This kind of shocking discriminatory ful bullying. Most of all, I stand with Americans safe from this virus in the lawmaking has no place in the 21st cen- the transgender people of North Caro- near term while a vaccine is under de- tury. It certainly has no place in Amer- lina and our country who are the tar- velopment. The House is also advanc- ica. Attorney General Loretta Lynch gets of this State-sponsored discrimi- ing its own paid-for Zika measure this said last week: nation. My heart goes out to them. very week. This is not the first time we have seen dis- This is not how a great nation should So we will take several votes today. criminatory responses to historic moments operate. We are better than this. So I We will continue moving forward with of progress for our nation. We saw it in the look forward to the day, and it is com- the appropriations process, and we will Jim Crow laws that followed the Emanci- ing soon, when this hateful law is pation Proclamation. We saw it in fierce and address Zika funding in that context widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of struck down. because keeping Americans safe and Education. And we saw it in the proliferation f healthy is a top priority for all of us. of state bans on same-sex unions intended to f stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Ameri- ZUBIK V. BURWELL cans might one day be afforded the right to RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY marry. Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday, LEADER This issue has been far-reaching. It the Supreme Court chose not to rule on The PRESIDING OFFICER. The has far-reaching consequences. This is the merits of Zubik v. Burwell, a case Democratic leader is recognized. about access to employment, edu- brought by religiously affiliated non- f cation, and just about everything else profit employers challenging the ac- commodation to the Affordable Care INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST in public life. This is about whether we Act’s contraceptive coverage provision. HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA are going to allow our fellow citizens to be bullied, intimidated, and har- Instead, the Court remanded the case Mr. REID. Mr. President, today is assed. to lower courts for further proceeding. International Day Against Homophobia The North Carolina law is not only The good news is that the order and Transphobia. This day of recogni- wrong, but it runs counter to the doesn’t stop women who rely on the Af- tion is especially significant for Amer- progress we are seeing in States and fordable Care Act for contraceptive ica since the civil rights of transgender cities across all of America.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for Institutional Reform of the Office of Legal Counsel
    \\server05\productn\H\HLP\4-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-FEB-10 17:43 A Call for Institutional Reform of the Office of Legal Counsel Bradley Lipton* INTRODUCTION The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has been deemed “the most impor- tant government office you’ve never heard of” by Newsweek magazine.1 In- deed, the office is extraordinarily powerful, standing as the legal arbiter of what the executive branch can and cannot do. With great power, so the saying goes, comes great responsibility—to fairly and forthrightly interpret the law, to hold the government back when it risks overreaching, and to settle disputes with an even hand. Yet during the Administration of George W. Bush, OLC let partisan political interests and ideology interfere with its function as fair-minded authority. As a result, the office has sanctioned— and the executive branch has pursued—legally unsound policies. This con- duct most prominently entered the public consciousness in two incidents: the sanctioning of torture by U.S. military forces2 and the politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice.3 The nomination of OLC head Dawn Johnsen has also recently prompted controversy.4 This Essay explains what went wrong in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush Administration and suggests institutional reform to prevent such problems in the future. I begin by showing how OLC’s conduct vio- lated widely held norms within the legal community. Though many observ- ers have focused on OLC’s actions authorizing torture, this Essay contends, on the basis of more recently released documents, that the office’s role per- mitting warrantless wiretapping within the United States was a unique viola- tion of lawyerly values.
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • HLS in the World
    HLS in the World Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Faculty Host: Susan Crawford ​ Participants: Edward Felten, Stasia Kelly ​ Join Edward Felten, one of the nation's leading experts on artificial intelligence, and Stasia Kelly, a leader of DLA Piper, as they discuss the effect of artificial intelligence on the practice of law. When clients get their answers from machines, what's left for lawyers to do? The Changing Political and Intellectual Landscape of Criminal Justice Reform Faculty Hosts: Andrew Crespo ’08, Carol Steiker ’86, Alex Whiting ​ ​ ​ Participants: Rachel Barkow ’96, Brook Hopkins ’07, Alan Jenkins ’89, Derecka Purnell ​ ’17, Jonathan Wroblewski The law, politics, and scholarship of criminal justice reform have been shifting in potentially tectonic ways. After several decades of increasingly punitive policies across the country which resulted in surging incarceration rates, the last several years have seen an increasingly bipartisan shift towards a critique of what has come to be called mass incarceration. Yet, the recent presidential election signals a shift in federal priorities away from a reform agenda a development that may (or may not) have consequences for the recent trajectory in favor of reform by many state and local actors. This interactive discussion explores these crosscurrents in the law, policy, and discourse surrounding our criminal justice system. Constitutionalism and Courts: A Transnational Conversation Among Judges Faculty Hosts: Vicki Jackson, Mark Tushnet ​ Participants: Rosalie Abella, Manuel Jose Cepeda LL.M. ’87, Dieter Grimm LL.M. ’65, ​ Koenraad Lenaerts LL.M. ’78, Sandile Ngcobo LL.M. ’86 A moderated discussion among justices from high courts around the world about, among other topics, the challenges they face, the ways they interpret their constitutions and similar documents, and the role of international and comparative law in their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 159 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 No. 161 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was and what we have focused on in recent tom-made medications for patients called to order by the President pro months is the problem we have with with unique health needs that cannot tempore (Mr. LEAHY). judges. be treated by off-the-shelf prescription Yesterday my friend did a remark- medicines. This practice is essential PRAYER ably good job in leading a precedent in- and can be critical for children, cancer The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- dicating the issues we have with the patients, and people with severe aller- fered the following prayer: DC Circuit, and I so appreciate his gies. Let us pray. leadership on this issue and all the The contaminated medicine mixed at Spirit of God, descend on our hearts, other issues on which the Judiciary the New England Compounding Center for apart from You life is a tale full of Committee works. It is too bad we can- was sent to scores of medical facilities sound and fury signifying nothing. not have the Judiciary Committee as it in 23 different States and given to May our Senators walk in Your ways, was in our earlier years in the Senate 14,000 patients. As I have indicated, 64 keeping Your precepts with such integ- where the productivity of that com- of them died and hundreds of those pa- rity that they will never be ashamed.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Judicial Review
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2003 Non-Judicial Review Mark V. Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 Non-Judicial Review 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) Mark V. Tushnet Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235/ Posted with permission of the author ESSAY NON-JUDICIAL REVIEW MARK TuSHNET* Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutional­ ism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three di­ verse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may per­ form constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies. If nothing else, familiarity leads us to assume that constitutional re­ view must occur in courts and that non-judicial actors-politicians, said in a disparaging tone of voice-would fail to do a decent job of constitu­ tional review were they given the chance.' Courts are said to be distinc­ tively the forum of principle,2 the legislature and executive the forum of politics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan*
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan* The standard conception of executive branch legal review in the scholarship is a quasi-judicial Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) dispensing formal, written opinions binding on the executive branch. That structure of executive branch legalism did have a brief heyday. But it obscures core characteristics of contemporary practice. A different structure of executive branch legalism—informal, diffuse, and intermingled in its approach to lawyers, policymakers, and political leadership—has gained new prominence. This Article documents, analyzes, and assesses that transformation. Scholars have suggested that the failure of OLC to constrain presidential power in recent publicized episodes means that executive branch legalism should become more court-like. They have mourned what they perceive to be a disappearing external constraint on the presidency. Executive branch legalism has never been an exogenous or external check on presidential power, however. It is a tool of presidential administration itself. Exploring changes in the structure of executive branch legal review sheds light on the shifting needs of the * Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School. From 2009–2012, I served in the Justice Department as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and then as an Attorney Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel. The views expressed are my own and the discussion is based only on publicly available materials. For generous engagement with this project at various stages,
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the President's Legal Advisors
    Guidelines for the President's Legal Advisors INTRODUCTON* At the outset of the twenty-first century, the President's constitutional and statutory powers are the subject of serious controversy among political leaders, legal academics, the American public, and the international community alike. The "war on terror," that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in particular has brought assertions of new and expansive presidential authority regarding enemy combatants, military tribunals, preemptive self-defense and warrantless domestic wiretaps, torture and other extreme interrogation techniques. Each assertion raises new variations on enduring questions about the Constitution's allocation of governmental power and the protections it affords individuals from governmental abuses, as well as about how constitutional principles should affect the interpretation of federal statutes that purport to constrain governmental authority. Unchanging, however, and essential to understanding presidential power, is the President's overriding obligation to exercise executive authority in conformity with the law. Presidents are not constrained merely by whatever checks Congress and the courts might impose; congressional oversight and judicial review by their nature provide only limited safeguards against presidential abuse. Rather, the constitutional text and structure, as well as longstanding practice, affirmatively obligate Presidents to ensure that their actions comply with all relevant constitutional, statutory, and other legal requirements. On assuming office, Presidents must take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."' Presidents also must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.",2 And to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws, Presidents need good legal advice. From our nation's earliest days, Presidents have recognized their need for legal counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    THE HYDRAULIC THEORY OF OPPOSITION Ian M. Swenson * For many years scholars and the public have assumed that Circuit Court confirmation hearings, like Supreme Court confirmation hearings, are con- tentious and focused on hot button issues such as abortion. In fact, this article will show that prior to the Trump administration Circuit Court nom- inees were rarely questioned about abortion and hearings were rarely con- tentious. But in the 115th Congress (the first two years of the Trump ad- ministration) the majority of nominees were questioned about abortion— some of them at great length. This article seeks to explain this change in senatorial behavior and suggests that it is the result of legal and political pressures on the senators as well as changes to Senate procedures. This is the Hydraulic Theory of Opposition. The legal and political pressures on * JD, New York University School of Law, 2019. My thanks to Dean Trevor Morrison for his supervision. My thanks also to Luke Goveas, Cameron Sinsheimer, and Nicholas Gallagher, for their smart and helpful edits. Thanks finally to the editors of the Journal of Law & Liberty for their terrific work preparing this article for publication. 205 206 New York University Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 14:205 the Democratic senators drive them to oppose these nominees based on the nominees’ presumed position vis-à-vis abortion; and the way the Senate structures its procedures determines how this opposition manifests. Because the Senate has eliminated sub rosa forms of opposition—such as the filibus- ter and Blue Slips—contentious confirmation hearings are now how that opposition manifests.
    [Show full text]
  • ACADEMIC FREEDOM Andacademic DUTY Final Program
    Final Program Amended December 9, 2011 ACADEMIC FREEDOM and ACADEMIC 2012 ANNUAL MEETING JANUARY 4–8, 2012 DUTY WASHINGTON, DC w w w.aals.org/am2012/ THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS SPONSORS OF THE AssOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOls AALS would like to thank and recognize the following organizations and law schools for their generous contributions to support the association’s many goals and activities. Foundational Gifts ($100,000 or more) West, a Thomson Reuters business Foundation Press, a Thomson Reuters business Printing Directory of Law Teachers, Journal of Legal Education, AALS Newsletter, 2012 Annual Meeting Final Program Sponsor Gifts ($15,000 to $25,000) Lexis Nexis Sponsorship of 2012 Annual Meeting Convention Tote Bags for Registrants Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Lanyards, Badge Holders, Badge Envelopes for 2011-2012 Professional Development Programs and 2012 Annual Meeting and One Day of Refreshment Breaks at 2011 Workshop for New Law School Teachers Contributor Gift ($10,000 to $15,000) Carolina Academic Press Financial Support of Annual Meeting 2012 Inaugural Law and Film Series Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Financial Support of 2012 Workshop for Pretenured People of Color Law School Teachers We would like to thank the following for their donations to AALS for the 2011-2012 Academic Year Complete Equity Markets, Inc. 2012 Annual Meeting Continental Breakfast for Section Officers Gonzaga University School of Law Sponsored Food at the Reception for Registrants at the 2011 Conference on the Future of the Law
    [Show full text]
  • Advise & Consent
    The Los Angeles County Bar Association Appellate Courts Section Presents Advise & Consent: A Primer to the Federal Judicial Appointment Process Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Program - 12:00 - 1:30 PM Zoom Webinar CLE Credit: 1.5 Hours Credit (including Appellate Courts Specialization) Provider #36 The Los Angeles County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. The Los Angles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. PANELIST BIOS Judge Kenneth Lee (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) Kenneth Kiyul Lee is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on May 15, 2019, making him the nation’s first Article III judge born in the Republic of Korea. Prior to his appointment, Judge Lee was a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block in Los Angeles, where he handled a wide variety of complex litigation matters and had a robust pro bono practice. Judge Lee previously served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush and as Special Counsel to Senator Arlen Specter, then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He started his legal career as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. Judge Lee is a 2000 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1997 summa cum laude graduate of Cornell University. He clerked for Judge Emilio M. Garza of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2000 to 2001. Judge Leslie Southwick (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) Leslie Southwick was appointed to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Skeptical Scrutiny of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch Decision Making in Miller V Albright
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1998 Skeptical Scrutiny Of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch Decision Making in Miller v Albright Cornelia T. Pillard Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] T. Alexander Aleinikoff This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/721 1 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1-70 (1998) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons CORNELIA T. L. PILLARD AND T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF SKEPTICAL SCRUTINY OF PLENARY POWER: JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISION MAKING IN MILLER v ALBRIGHT In 1996, just a few months after the United States successfully urged the Supreme Court in United States v Virginia' to invalidate as sex-discriminatory the male-only admissions policy at the Vir- ginia Military Institute, the District of Columbia Circuit in Miller v Albright2 upheld a federal law that used an express, sex-based Cornelia Pillard is Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. She is currently on leave to work in the U.S. Department ofJustice as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. T. Alexander Aleinikoff is Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank Catherine W. Brown, David D. Cole, Walter E. Dellinger III, Edward C. DuMont, Vicki C. Jackson, Edwin S. Kneedler, Martin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Commencement Is Only a Step on the Journey for Our Alumni the Catholic University of America from the Dean’S Desk Columbus School of Law Cualawyer Summer 2015 • Vol
    lawyer cuaThe Catholic University of America • Columbus School of Law Summer 2015 Commencement is Only a Step on the Journey for Our Alumni The Catholic University Of America From the Dean’s Desk Columbus School of Law cualawyer Summer 2015 • Vol. 33, No. 1 Dear CUA Law School Community y the time you receive areas is due in no small part to The alumni depicted herein represent the range this publication, we the outstanding efforts of our of career successes among our alumni popula- will have celebrated Columbus Community Legal tion, from law firm partners to judicial officers Bour 126th commencement at Services clinics, trial and ap- to business leaders. Whatever their chosen CUA Law. Among our 2015 pellate moot court teams, and field, our alumni share a common trait: their graduates, some are headed curricular concentrations in gratitude for receiving a first-rate education at for careers in private practice, civil litigation and criminal CUA Law that has positioned them for lifetime while others have chosen to litigation, just to name a few of career success and service to others. serve others through employ- of our programs focused on ment with the government or these areas. As we respond to ever-evolving and challeng- public interest organizations, ing landscape of legal education, many of you and still others will be working We know that the practical continue to play a special role in our students’ in business related fields or as- training our students receive success during their CUA Law experience. You sisting the judiciary as law clerks. We are very bears fruit in the real world of practice.
    [Show full text]